2010 (10) TMI 1117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ber. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue raising following ground:- (1) Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of concealment of income identified during the course of survey and supported by incriminating documentary evidence in possession of the department which clearly established intention of the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn of income filed on 29.10.2007 declaring total income at ₹ 13,75,100/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on the same income of ₹ 13,75,100/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings and treated the sum of ₹ 95 lacs as concealed income on which tax was worked at ₹ 31,97,700/-. The AO levied the penalty being 100% of such alleged tax sought to be evaded at &#8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arefully perused the material on record. In our considered view there is no case of levy of penalty. In a similar case in ITA No.1482/Ahd/2010 Asst. Year 2006-07 in Dy. CIT vs. Dr.Satish B. Gupta, pronounced on 6/8/2010, the Tribunal while deciding the issue has observed as under :- "10. Our view that no penalty is leviable if impugned amount is disclosed in the return of income is supported by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment. No penalty would survive if addition did not survive. In CIT vs. Arthanariswamy Chettiar (S.S.K.G.) (1982) 136 ITR 145 (Mad) Hon. Madras High Court held that penalty can be imposed with reference to the concealment done in the original return filed under section 139. In the case of Sulemanji Ganibhai vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR....